Systematic evaluation of medium-throughput mRNA abundance platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Profiling of mRNA abundances with high-throughput platforms such as microarrays and RNA-seq has become an important tool in both basic and biomedical research. However, these platforms remain prone to systematic errors and have challenges in clinical and industrial applications. As a result, it is standard practice to validate a subset of key results using alternate technologies. Similarly, clinical and industrial applications typically involve transitions from a high-throughput discovery platform to medium-throughput validation ones. These medium-throughput validation platforms have high technical reproducibility and reduced sample input needs, and low sensitivity to sample quality (e.g., for processing FFPE specimens). Unfortunately, while medium-throughput platforms have proliferated, there are no comprehensive comparisons of them. Here we fill that gap by comparing two key medium-throughput platforms--NanoString's nCounter Analysis System and ABI's OpenArray System--to gold-standard quantitative real-time RT-PCR. We quantified 38 genes and positive and negative controls in 165 samples. Signal:noise ratios, correlations, dynamic range, and detection accuracy were compared across platforms. All three measurement technologies showed good concordance, but with divergent price/time/sensitivity trade-offs. This study provides the first detailed comparison of medium-throughput RNA quantification platforms and provides a template and a standard data set for the evaluation of additional technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".